About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 56
LANGUAGE
English 56
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 56 (some duplicates have been removed)
does this leave him? assume that he gets confirmed, he has to be a tough -- a tough guy at the pentagon. he is going to be tough with congress. he has to deal with the potential of the sequester, fighting for the budget that he does get, dealing with all of the problems that come at you when you are in charge of the pentagon and the generals and the other members of the joint chiefs are going to feel they can run over him. >> we'll see about that. i assume that every general with any number of stars was watching intently yesterday, and might have had that thought in mind. you said another important word, which is sequester. it's going to be a huge mess over there trying to, first, anticipate this, and then deal with whatever the new reality is. i do think that it was ugly yesterday. it was ugly on both sides. the white house wasn't so much from what i heard defending his performance as saying that those mean republicans also performed in an ugly and bad and not very attractive way. i don't think anybody looked particularly good in that showdown. i also think it's very clear that this is
, not just cutting the bloat in the pentagon budget so we don't have $500 hammers on a submarine, we're talking about saving money. my institute, the institute for policy studies, my colleague, marian pemberton has figured out we could save $200 billion just this year, not over ten years, in just the military side without doing anything that would put us at risk. >> what you have articulated is the progressive line on this which i am sympathetic to. but it is an austerian line. we're talking about raising taxes and cutting defense budget. what you're doing is diminishing the deficit and -- >> but actually the thing -- >> the military spending hurts our economy. >> in other words, this is basically -- what is so ironic about this is it kind of goes back to woodrow wilson, why are the fights so difficult or so vicious? because the stakes are so small. really in reality when you look at sequestration and we're talking about $85 billion this year, really only with $40 billion in real spending cuts, because of the way the budget operates with budget authority. you're looking at not a huge
senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet member in the history of the country but apparently now this is the time and this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. "today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week in brussels, the united states will meet with our allies to talk about the transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial, and our next secretary of defense should be there. for the sake of national security, it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
of the pentagon that i'm willing to do this. we are never again going to get to cut the pentagon back. the pentagon hasn't had any significant cuts for 30 years. >> josh green, is that the political equivalent of a liger, a lion and tiger combined to make an animal we have never seen before. rand paul and howard dean agreeing that the sequester should go through because, hey, defense -- >> hadn't occurred to me in quite those terms, but, yes, i suppose it could be a liger. >> there have always been contingent of liberal democrats that have wanted to go after the pentagon because its budget has grown enormously since 9/11. what you haven't had is a kind of republican analog. there have been a few people here, walter jones, congressman in north carolina, ron paul, in fact, was a big advocate of this, but only in the last couple of years, and really only in the last 18 months since the sequester cuts have loomed have you seen this tension between small government anti-tax republicans and pro-defense republicans. it's really a sort of tug-of-war between their two interests. traditionally
.e. cupp. right now, playing defense. it's decision day for the president. his pick to lead the pentagon. i'm going to talk about that in a bit. >>> i'm toure in east lansing, michigan. a new salvo today in the civil war. republicans signing on in support of gay marriage. welcome to the modern world, you guys. >>> speaking of battles. didn't think you'd escape an hour without the sequester fight. yep, the koubd clock is officially ticking. >> you want to go here again, s.e.? >> you go. >>> nancy pelosi called it a drive-by congress and speeding america toward another fiscal cliff. >> me again? >>> all that and first lady exercising political muscle. get it? because she wants us to get fit! >>> groundhog day february 2nd. will have an early spring. if you're wondering. but today is groundhog day in washington, at least that's how leon panetta describes the succession of getting his successor confirmed. con fired cleared a test vote today. same vote he failed two weeks ago. the next vote could come next hour. panetta had two farewell parties and waiting out the last hours of the tenure at the
to the staff at the pentagon since taking office early this morning. hagel was sworn in at a private ceremony after an unusually tough confirmation fight, which ended in a 58-41 vote. hagel overcame a republican-led filibuster by members of his own party who never forgave his criticism of the iraq war. let me bring in republican strategist and former santorum senior strategist and nbc col n columnist and contributing editor for the hill. good morning. he has to confront a staggering $46 billion in cuts to military spending which are set to begin tomorrow. he's got his work cut out for him. >> he really does. part of the reason the president selected chuck hagel was knowing going forward the defense department would have to undergo cuts anyhow. obviously the sequester makes that a lot tougher process because it is, you know, these cuts are much less strategic obviously than what we would have preferred. he also comes in after having a tough few weeks, a little bloodied i think and some of that was intended not so much to go after hagel but to try to go after the president and, thankfully, the
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
they're in agreement on the big issues that are going to be facing the pentagon. and that includes withdrawing almost all u.s. combat troops from afghanistan by the end of 2014, and some savings in the pentagon. so, i mean, it can't be a surprise that he would choose someone for the -- for his top, you know, for these top cabinet jobs, that are going to be on the side of what he wants to do. the fact that senator hagel is a republican, it helps the fact that he's a former senator. it helps, and, you know, the fact that he is a combat veteran himself, from vietnam, i think also gives him credibility in dealing with these issues. it's going to be contentious. we know that when these sequestration budget cuts come up in just a couple weeks on march 1st, that we would expect to hear senator hagel's voice on those cuts as well. >> again, that vote is coming up this afternoon at 2:45. that just announced by senator levin. so we should have some forward motion on that vote. thanks to the power panel today, chip saltsman, ben labolt, and a happy birthday to susan page. we understand it's y
only five or six days ago that he was still -- the pentagon still wants him to take that position. he was temporarily sidelined by an inquiry into whether they were inappropriate emails between him and jill kelly, the tampa woman involved in the whole petraeus situation, and then he was cleared of any wrong doing by the pentagon. >> you know, we're told now that this -- i mean, this is a sad episode. we're told he did not want to come to -- his family would be involved, and he would have to answer questions. >> you know, draen, i think this shows you that even when you are cleared now the damage done. it's -- it seems hard for me to believe that if the whole jill kelly episode hpt ever aired publicly, that he would have decided he would have wanted to step aside. it seemed like he was on the fast track to get that job. these things -- i think what everyone forgets, this is true with military, this is true with particularly at that level, and it's absolutely true of politicians. these people are people. the focus of the coverage of these emails got lots and lots of attention. the focus
hagel to run the pentagon. democrats fell just shy of the votes needed to advance the process. something that president obama chalked up to partisan. >> somebody should get to 60 votes. only a handful of incident where there's be any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and what seems to be happening, and this has been growing over time, is the republican minority in the senate seem to think that the rule now is, that you have to have 60 votes for everything. that's not the rule. it's just unfortunate that this kind of politics intrudes at a time when i'm still presiding over a war in afghanistan and i need a secretary of defense who's coordinating with our allies to make sure that our troops are getting the kind of strategy and mission they deserve. >> senate majority leader harry reid foos feels that the republicans are more concerned about their futures than what's best. >> nothing is going to change in the next ten days in the qualifications of chuck hagel. the ability to run for senate as a republican in most places in the country you need to have a r
level that he had been waterboarded. he had practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. but when he referred to containment on iran rather than prevention of nuclear weapons and had to be corrected and then corrected again, a note was passed to him, and then the chairman helpfully said to him, containment is not a policy at all. that is not our policy. that is such a critical mistake on an issue that he knew that he was going to be asked about. we knew that he was going to have to explain the, quote, jewish lobby and take that back and some of the other things. the way he did it didn't seem crisp. and then when ted cruz wheeled in the tv screen to play an al jazeera talk show and put him on the spot or how he defended israel or didn't defend israel in response to a question on a talk show, it would be like somebody saying to you or mika, joe, you were on c-span ten years ago, and what did you say to someone who called in? that was very, very tough. >> that was sort of my point at the top. >> it's interesting that you had said, mika, yesterday as we were going to a meeti
, that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed the -- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are tough. the
? >> at the pentagon. >> this is the first time hearing of this. when did this happen? did they make this decision on the cruise ship? >> no. no, they didn't. it actually happened in washington. >> really? that's fascinating. >> which is its own permanent port-a-potty. >> okay. mika, for those of us that were just sitting there looking at a cruise ship for 24 hours instead of following the real news, why don't you catch us up with what actually happened yesterday in the news. >> republicans blocked a vote yesterday that would have ended the debate and allowed for a final decision one way or another. democrats fell just shy of the votes needed to advance the process. something president obama chalked up to partisan politics. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says that somebody should get 60 votes. there are only a handful of instances in which there's been any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and what seems to be happening -- and this has been growing over time -- is the republican minority in the senate seem to think that the rule now is that you have
on the pentagon than allow for any higher tax ref it's an interesting statement of conservative priorities at this point to me. >> michael, there was an ad lib line in the state of the union. it seemed to me at least, look, i don't want to do benefit cuts in social security unless republicans first open up on more revenue. let's say in the unlikely event republicans do say they're open to more revenue, whether it's closing loopholes, deduction, there was a letter yesterday calling on obama to flatly rule out any benefit cuts in medicare, medicaid, social security and that would include chained cpi. give as you little preview if obama does go down this road what he's going to be facing within his own party if he touches chained cpi, for instance. >> there is going to be really strong opposition. i think a lot of the opposition may be all 100 of the members who signed that member were entirely sincere about it. at the same time, when deal get done in washington, there's a necessary degree of posturing and theatrics. you need to have both sides for something to get done here are going to need
the pentagon. it has to do with he's been mean to president bush. he's been mean to john mccain. this process has said more about republicans than quite franklin it has said about chuck -- >> what about this issue of him -- is he going to be in charge of the pentagon? >> i think that is going to be the test for chuck hagel when he is sworn in fairly quickly and fairly soon as the next defense secretary. and i think there's no doubt he's going to go into that building and he'll take strong command of it. and that's what is going to be remembered. >> that is the toughest job in washington for the best and most qualified person and this process has weakened him, and his personality is probably not suited for this job. i can assure you of one thing. robert gibbs is going to be very happy he's not standing at that press podium the first time chuck hagel opines about the president's foreign policy and their disagreements on it. >> i can tell you there were a lot of reporters that were answering to be on this trip to brussels. >> the reasons that are being shown to hold up this nomination, it's not
them to be moved from the cia back to the pentagon. but the fact is that there has been something like a 700% increase in the use of drones under president obama as compared to george w. bush. >> and andrea, as you know, from your sources at the agency and i know from my sources not only from the agency but in the entire intelligence community when barack obama came into office, they specifically said, they wanted to ramp up drone operations. and they wanted there to be a side-by-side comparison of how many strikes bush did versus how many strikes they did. for brennan to say that he wants to pull back on drone strikes, that's just -- that's just not accurate. and that's not what's been happening since january 20th, 2009. you can go back. and when the history is written, you will go back to january 20th, 2009, and see a very deliberate -- >> executive orders. >> executive orders. and again, i think most americans probably support this policy. so it's not like i'm talking about anything that's going to be scandalous. most people will support the president doing this. but it obviously ca
to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basically 99.9% of the coun
, the pentagon would take the brunt of that blow with the rest of the pain coming to domestic programs. >> our economy right now is headed in the right direction. and it will stay that way as long as there aren't any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of washington. so let's keep on chipping away at this problem together, as democrats and republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead. >> the president's called for a fix of short-term spending cuts and tax reform hit a brick on capitol hill. politico reporting that obama's plan dead on arrival, and house speaker john boehner was speaking on capitol hill, right now saying that his party plans to stand with the american people and we want to show you exactly what he had to say about that yesterday. >> on two occasions has passed a plan to replace the sequester. it's time for the senate democrats to do that work. it's time for the president to offer his ideas about how to replace the sequester. >> his first answer to everything is new taxes. and when you think about it, wh
news pentagon krontd jim miklaszewski joins us live. we just got a note secretary kerry was informed just before 11:00 p.m. yesterday and he is also spoken with the chinese foreign minister wels japan foreign minister on this issue. what are we likely to hear and see next? >> reporter: the focus is on china. even though china may have joined in condemning the act, the proof is in the pudding. they will have to step up and actually join in enforcing stricter, tighter sanctions against north korea. all this time, while the international community particularly the u.s. has been ratcheting up those sanctions against north korea, china has continued to provide oil and other critical supplies to north korea ignoring the international sanctions. so it really falls on china at this point. if they're really serious and in any kind of condemnation against north korea for this nuclear test to step up and join in these international sanctions, tamron. >> you have mentioned in your prior reports today, mick, this was an eye opener for anyone who belonged that kim jung un was different from his fa
at capitol hill, art tea talking about the impact of the budget cuts on the pentagon. in the senate they are expected to finally clear the way for confirmation vote to chuck hagel who will inherit this budget mess. janet napolitano, you see her on the right there, also speaking live at the brookings institution. and then just moments ago, we heard from a fired-up john boehner who blames the stalemate on the president and the senate. >> we have moved a bill in the house twice. we should not have a move a third bill before the senate gets off their ass and begins to do something. >> i'm joined by military analyst jack jacobs. good to see you. >> good morning. >> if lawmakers can't make this march 1st deadline, $43 billion or 8% will be slushed from the pentagon budget. they have used words like devastating, dire. are they right? how significant would this be? >> very serious indeed. these are across the board cuts. i mean, there's no intelligence or intelligent decisions made on what is going to be cut. so in addition to fact -- and there's plenty of fact -- you are going to cut ammun
. >> you heard chuck haegle say, that he saw that film. two days after that, he changed the pentagon policy and announced that rape allegations would be moved out of the direct line of command that has been so successful of suppressing these allegations and each branch of the military will have a special unit for these allegations. this is something that the secretary of defense has the power to do on his own authority. but most senators have no interest in that. in this rape crisis in the american military and they wasted their time today talking about policy questions that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense. joining me now alex wagner and eugene robinson. >> alex, in our military today, women are actually putting their lives at risk simply bien listing. and we have to sit there today and watch the senators wander all over today about policies that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense when they have this crime crisis right in front of them. >> the reasons for that are two-fold. one is violence perpetrated against women have been ignored by the congress of rece
, a member of the bush pentagon's defense policy board, michael hastings author of the new digital book "panic 2012, the sublime and terrifying inside story of obama's final campaign ♪ ♪ barbara siegel, also washington correspondent for the middle east website al monitor.com. great to have you all here. >> thank you. >> so i am -- well, where to start? i think the lessons unlearned to me was the most troubling. it seemed to me we had a moment in 2008 particularly in which president obama articulated this kind of alternative foreign policy vision and did so quite forthrightly. for instance, negotiations with iran and ahmadinejad. and somehow four years later, we've moved backwards, right? the old -- i guess as we've gotten further away from the debacle of iraq, as that's more remote in people's memory, there's more and more the sense of iraq ended up okay and you saw this -- i thought it was so interesting, it was the relitigation of the surge. because that in some ways is this key narrative plot point that somehow redeem tess entire war. and so you saw, for instance, john mccain, in
out of federal programs and the pentagon. 800,000 civilian employees have been told by the defense department that they will likely be placed on unpaid leave. with the house and senate still in recess, a number of democrats are calling for congress to reconvene to deal with this mess. secretary of state john kerry, meanwhi meanwhile, is reminding his former colleagues that actions here at home do have global implications. take a listen. >> it is often said that we cannot be strong at home if we're not strong in the world. but in these days of a looming budget sequester that everyone actually wants to avoid, or most, we can't be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility is a diplomat, working to help other countries create order is strongest when america, at last, puts its own fiscal house in order. and that has to be now. let's reach a responsible agreement that prevents these senseless consults. let's not lose this opportunity because of politics. >> you know, mike barnicle, politics is such a cruel, cruel game. seriously. there's one guy that gets to the to
, will be with the pentagon. it is only when the nation views itself as being at peace that diplomacy can take some kind of equal footing. until we get to place where we do something as dramatic as repealing or refusing to reauthorize, the authorization of the use of military force and we end our hot wars, when we have a transparent discussion about what our activities are in terms of drones and targeted killing, only at the point the nation decides to call itself at peace can diplomacy actually ascend to some kind of parity. unless and until we reach that moment, it is impossible, politically and institutionally to get there. >> at some point i want to talk about when they announce in the spring that the u.s. is going to transition to no longer being in the lead role in afghanistan when they make that announcement this spring. i want to talk to you about whether or not it's significant if they're going to rename the operation in afghanistan, whether operation enduring freedom. >> that's really interesting. >> that will be our next conversation. >> hopefully before then. >> okay. chris hayes, thanks. ch
. but now, those repairs have stalled. the pentagon has stopped the upgrade indefinitely. because of next week's catastrophic budget cuts, that republicans refuse to stop on tuesday, president obama will head to that navy yard, navy shipyard. after republicans have their hypocrisy. the gop for this disaster in the making, and cuts that will start next friday will hurt our recovery and cost up to 700 thousand jobs. >> it has become clear that the cuts would have an adverse impact on families, on teachers, and parents who rely on head start programs. on our military readiness. on mental health services. on medical research. this is not smart way for us to reduce the deficit. >> not smart? >> the president was just being gracious. these cuts are crazy. not republicans are not letting them happen. especially to protect the rich. the american people don't want any of these cuts that are about to kick in next friday. 80% of spending cuts on education, just 10% want the cut. 83% oppose spending cuts for food and drug inspections. just 14% want them. and 81% oppose spending cuts for roads and inf
. they don't receive combat pay and it's absolutely ridiculous. so recently, the pentagon established that a woman that serves in combat is entitled to receive all of the things that go with it to show our country's appreciation. so it seems to me that if we're going to have a draft and i really believe that if we did have a draft set up that congress would not be so anxious to the democrats and republicans to put our young people in harm's way. >> tell me why you say that because you're introduced this legislation multiple times and it's clearly something you're very committed to. you bet your life because the people in the congress that allow these things to go on, they have no fear that anyone in their community and their families are going to be making any sacrifice at all. less than 1% of americans, most of whom volunteer for economic reasons paid the price in terms of 6600 lives lost, tens of thousands of people wounded. veterans, american veterans coming home, disoriented, unemploy unemployed, some homeless and no one pays a price. i submit to you, we would not be in iraq, afgh
to the pentagon, but let's be honest, it's been ugly so far. >>> and the country says good-bye to one of its most outspoken and color mayors, ed koch, likes to say how am i doing, history would say he's done a pretty good job of leading new york into a new era. >>> good morning from washington, it's friday, february 1st, 2013. let's get to the first read of the morning. i'll get to the jobs report in a minute, but i want to get to hagel. i want to start there. no doubt chuck hagel had a rough outing before the armed services committee, the question is whether hostility to hagel's nomination breaks down so completely along partisan lines. that he's still able to survive. there's clearly a lot of republican opposition to hagel, some of it may be personal. the white house for now is chalking up the eight painful hours to political theatrics and believe these republican senators were simply tougher on hagel than they were on john kerry or on john brennan because they view hagel as a turncoat, but, wow, did hagel just sit there and allow himself to get flogged. >> i have already stated that i regret t
's the complement of non -- of folks from the state department that we send? the relationship between the pentagon and the state department seems to have changed as well. how will he weigh in on that? >> yeah, those are good questions. i think if i could just take two examples. with syria and also with afghanistan, you have questions of where the united states has to figure out some next policy steps that are pretty big and get to the question you raise, the balance between troops possibly, between diplomatic advisers, development experts, cia operatives, and where policy in the case of afghanistan has to make some changes, but it's generally on a predetermined course but it's going to have to vary quite a bit because we're drawing down troops now. in syria i think what we have is a policy for all the good intentions hasn't really worked. and if i were secretary kerry, i would probably commission my best people to do a two to four-week study on fundamentally new options in syria. where i think the united states has to recognize that what it's been doing so far hasn't been adequate and yet the coun
immediate to both operate inside the pentagon, and that's -- you heard robert gibbs, former press secretary yesterday say it was a little disconcerting watching him give those answers. they made a strategic decision not to have a debate with those republican senators. trying to not start fights, but was he too passive? >> there was a way to push back. david sanger, he could have said i disagree with you about the surge. senator mccain, you're my great friend, but let's talk about what's really going on. we have 66,000 troops at afghanistan right now. he didn't pivot. he didn't push back. he didn't fight. david brooks, your columnist in "the "new york times"" suggested to chuck this weekend that he should even go so far as saying to the president, mr. president, do you have second thoughts? should i withdraw? that's rather more than i would have expected at this point. >> you know, i think there were two remarkable elements to the testimony that former senator hagel gave. he seemed unprepared on basic issues. we were discussing iran before. he had a difficult time even articulating the presi
400 drone strikes in pakistan, yemen, and monthlia, while the pentagon drone fleet has expanded from 50 to 7,500. for the past decade american drone policy has existed largely in the shadows. its legal just ficks and moral underpinnings largely relegated to debate among progress severe media outlets and concerned libertarians. now as john brennan, the architect of the u.s. drone policy and president obama's mick to head the cia readies to testify this afternoon on capitol hill, calls for greater transparency and legal justification for the killings have increased. the outcry reached a crescendo on monday when nbc's michael isikoff obtained a leaked white pair from the government suggesting that the u.s. government can kill american set zenz overseas without any specific intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the u.s. the expansive legal framework set off alarm bells. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. i don't think that as one person said, that is too much to ask. >> the "new york times" wrot
the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself as a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to afghanistan. what we do know is this, as our nation's 23rd secretary of defense, every action leon panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. and just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we've put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat, and we've been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred
to charlie's child and to her wife. >> right. >> those benefits, the pentagon no matter how much they want to, they can't do those things. >> right. >> because they are precluded by law because of doma. >> and secretary panetta and the president, they did all they could under the law. and that's what a lot of people don't understand. here is another story charlie told me. she said when she was doing her live interview, she also went to see her then congressman from new hampshire. and she told her story. and the congressman said oh, but you're okay. you live in new hampshire. you're legally married in new hampshire. that's legal. so you're taken care of. so her congressman didn't even know that her wife was treated as a second class citizen and didn't enjoy the benefits that other military families enjoyed. so if the congressman didn't know, you know, the american public has no idea. so we need to continue telling charlie's story. >> the reason that i wanted to play that particular clip of her lobbying gene shaheen there, gene shaheen obviously somebody who has been very supportive of her. but
that is relate to the pentagon and to the u.s. military that will just be held in abians -- >> what do you think the british military and the french think when leon panetta turns up? >> well, they like leon panetta but what they will think is what they have been thinking for the last 2 1/2 years, is that the republican party in the united states has gone off the rails and is obstructing the normal order of business of the world's only super power, and this is the first time, martin, in the history of the defense department going back to the 1940s that there's been a filibuster of a nominee to head that department and i would wager that if it went to its predecessor that the department of war going all the way back in american history, this has never been done. these people are out of control in their obstructionism and the only thing to do is fight them all the way, and there are new tools that the president unveiled in his state of the union to do that with. the president should go to enlisted personnel, retired enlisted personnel all over the united states and say, chuck hagel is the first of
hagel's prospects for running the pentagon are going to hang in limbo for another two weeks as senate republicans get exactly what they want, more time. folks, delay is rarely a good thing when it comes to these fights. also this morning, a deep dive into iran's upcoming election as ahmadinejad heads out of office, the world wants to see which way his successor will take the combative country. >>> and a monumental moment lambs on capitol hill, with the retirement of new jersey senator frank lautenberg, there will be no more world war ii veterans in the u.s. senate. what's that mean for our politics and our national perspective? >>> good morning from washington. it's friday, february 15th, it's t"the daily rundown." i'm chuck todd. president obama is standing by his embattled nominee for secretary of defense, chuck hagel, as hagel's former senate republican colleagues put up a major roadblock yesterday in their attempts to not just delay the nomination, but try to kill it. >> the yeas are 58, the nays are 40. one senator announced present. >> and with that senate vote, chuck hagel came
there starts to end. the headline news out of brussels today was a very terse statement from the pentagon spokesman. it was kind of strange. he was essentially clarifying, hey, whatever you heard from the germans earlier today, that was not true. this is the statement. the reports that the u.s. told allies that we are considering 8,000 to 12,000 u.s. troops after 2014 are not correct. a range of 8,000 to 12,000 troops was discussed, but it was discussed as the possible size of the overall nato mission, not the u.s. contribution. ah, important clarification. so the defense minister from germany had apparently told reporters that 8 to 12,000 troops was how many troops america was going to keep in afghanistan. everybody thought that was very big news since that's not what we heard hear at home at all. maybe that is how the german guy understood it, but it is apparently not the way that leon panetta meant it. that was the headline out of brussels today. those troops, that's nato combined, that's not just us. that was the headline. the other news of course was that representing the united stat
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 56 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)